Rosen was predictably going along on #1 (that's the meme the Dems are pushing now, #2 will come to the forefront later). But because they had to defend themselves against Romney's counterattack (Obama's economy hurting women), for a moment #2 came to the fore: i.e., Ann Romney's a rich bitch who's never worked a day in her life, so what does she know about the economy or jobs?

Short circuit. Because the "rich bitch" was tacit, implicit; what was explicit, what everyone heard out loud was: stay-at-home mom never worked a day in her life, so what does she know about the economy or jobs?

A stupid sneering insult to stay-at-home moms, i.e. a large number of women. Short circuit.

Do Democrats need to be careful to fight these 2 wars separately, or is there a way that the 2 wars could be merged successfully? Rosen merely lost a battle. That doesn't mean her side has lost the war or that it is not capable of a war on 2 fronts. You might not want them to win, but that doesn't matter for the purposes of this discussion. Whichever side you are on, you will want to understand this.

Here's something I found that was written before Rosengate. (I need a better word than "Rosengate." What would be the equivalent of "-gate" that would signify not a scandal, but a battle. Maybe: -incourt. Rosenincourt/Rosincourt?) Anyway, this is from a website I've never noticed before called policymic, and the author is John Giokaris:

During the weakest post-recession recovery in history, there’s very little material to accentuate the positive with, so the Democrats are trying to make up for it by dividing the American public with class warfare and trying to convince women they need dependency on government for protection.

See the connection between the 2 wars? In the merger of these wars, there is a coherent left-wing vision of government, and the stay-at-home wife is a threat to this vision. In the "war on women," women are threatened and beleaguered. They are victims, and they can't make it one their own. The left would like you to see that only the government can competently and reliably serve the needs of women.

The traditional vision would have each woman ally with one man and form a single economic unit that would be effectively and efficiently structured, with one spouse leaving the house each day to engage in commercial activity and the other spouse looking after things in the home. The married couple takes care itself, including its emotional and sexual needs, which are the very thing that produces offspring, and the love and economic support flows naturally to the next generation, which is trained to follow the same effective and efficient structure.

The left-wing response is to reject that traditional vision, but how? The rejection is the 2-front war. Women should perceive the traditional married-life model as a big threat. It's retrograde and subordinating. It's a throwback to the bad old days when women lacked choices. Anyone promoting the traditional married-life model will be re-framed as someone who will destroy the advances that have been made for women — even if they are only saying women have a choice, and the traditional model is actually a great choice, a choice you should consider, a choice that works best if you can find a good husband.

There's the central battleground: Do women have a choice? The left has loved the word "choice" when it comes to childbearing. Indeed, in the "war on women" battlefront, they want to say their opponents aim to take away the choice that is birth control and abortion, the choice whether to become pregnant or to go through with a pregnancy. But a different choice comes into play here: Should women choose the traditional marriage structure to protect their economic needs? It's a great option if you can get it, so the left would like to say: You can't get it. That's a choice that is no choice. Only rich people can afford that luxury. Only a 1 percenter can keep a wife at home. The right-wing candidate is very rich, and his rich-bitch wife doesn't know what she's talking about. They'd like to deprive all the other women of the protection they really need, which must come from the government.

In this left-wing framework in which the vast majority of women need the government structure around them, women are not supposed to identify with Ann Romney . The left would like to alienate her from you by portraying the economically supportive husband as something only available to the rich. President Obama would like you to think that even he, as a Harvard Law School graduate, could not keep a wife at home with their 2 children. It's an economic solution that works for so few people that it's no choice at all.

How does the other side fight this 2-front war? It's obvious now, isn't it? They need to show that the traditional household division of labor is viable and advantageous to many people, even those of modest wealth. I'd like to see that battle fought. Personally, I think many women have been fooled over the years into working terribly hard for too little reward. I also think — and I'm very non-retrograde here — that many men can do well as the stay-at-home spouse. (And I support same-sex marriages and think these nontraditional couples can prosper using a traditional division of labor.)

I would love to hear a very open and fact-based discussion of household economics. Let's do the math and take everything into account, including the tax advantages for the 1-earner family, the costs of going to work (clothes, transportation, eating out, etc.), and the many expense that can be avoided if someone is at home doing household work. There's a lot of propaganda in this 2-front war for the minds of women (and men). Let's keep our wits about us as we make our personal life decisions and our political decisions.

202 comments:

I would add a "War on Christianity" from the Left which the Dems have restyled as a "War on Women" from the Right. I would also add "War between the Races" which the Left has started and hopes the Right will take up.

Why do we need this as a national conversation? Every family with children have this conversation at home. Some families decide to make the financial sacrifices and some families decide it is better for both parents to work.

I think Althouse is in a liberal bubble where stay at home is some strange foreign concept. Get away from the university and talk to real people living normal lives.

what everyone heard out loud was: stay-at-home mom never worked a day in her life

I really have not paid much attention to the latest "outrage of the day over what someone said," but to the extent that I was confronted with having to hear about this, what I took from it was Romney is well off and, thus, has never really had to work.

Many people said the same thing about Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of John Kerry (who served in Vietnam).

Marriage is the intermediate stage between courtship and divorce. Although there are certain economic advantages to the transitory stage of marriage, the final stage, divorce, has very few. There are, of course, exceptions to this. The extremely wealthy first husband of Mrs. Kerry did not live forever, but, as a general rule, marriages seldom end so happily.

First, the 'war' metaphor is awful in both instances, intended mainly to predetermine the way the analysis will go. If the use of metaphor to achieve that result didn't get a chapter in Alinsky's book, it should have.

Second, basic issues of family structure are pretty far removed from the political issues in a presidential campaign that they supposedly relate to -- tax and fiscal policies being most prominent, followed by proposals to reform entitlement programs. It's not that different tax structures, for example, don't exert influence (by creating economic incentives) on the choices people make. But those incentives are (I think) largely second-order at best. They have an impact but aren't really the driving force on any of this.

I suspect that, as a campaign theme, all of this will fall completely flat for the Dems this year. As Rove said yesterday in the WSJ, and Jay Cost underscores today at the WS, this is not what the voter in the middle who might be swayed either way will be interested in hearing about. The campaigns will be forced to respond to consumer demand to discuss the issues that matter to those voters, not this phony 'war' stuff.

Since the Privileged Princess could also be cast as "withering on the vine" in a stay-at-home marriage, they're 2 entities. I don't think you merge them unless you impoverish all women, which, as Ann says, is the Demos' goal.

And Rialby probably ought to expand his point to a War on Religion (they probably hate Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism for the same reason; they're too scared of Islam to go near it). And the "War between the Races" has been going on since the late 60s.

chuck b. said...

Well, I don't find any of this remotely persuasive. The Democrats have their fake war on women, now the Republicans have their fake war on mothers. It's all bullshit.

No, the feminists have been spitting on the traditional wife and mom for 40 years. The more single, unwed mothers and the more divorced women, the more people that can be pulled into the Welfare Kitchen

Obama likes to compare himself to Abe Lincoln. In Obama's mind, Abe comes off unfavorably in the exchange. This Hillary Rosen moment was just an early battle in what looks to be a long and nasty war. But The Bamster and his attack legions skedaddled back across the Potomac yesterday like the Yankees at First Manassas. There was a lot of yelling screaming and shouting, but they were on the run.

Now Obama is faced with the problem that Lincoln had---can he find a general who will win this war for him?

To get back to your final graf - there is significant risk that accompanies a one earner household. Given how much the labor market has changed with the rise of the gig economy, families need to accept a lot of risk if they are going to move to 1 income vs. 2. Having two incomes/jobs is as much for diversification as it is for income.

Now, with the Obamas, I think's it farcical to imagine that one of them couldn't have a well paying job at any given time, especially given that they were in their mid-30s before they had children.

I am a "beleaguered" state worker here in Wisconsin, and my wife has been able to stay at home for the last 6 years. We've done the math - the amount of money that she would make would be eaten up by day care and taxes, so it really doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe after the youngest goes to elementary school, then she might think about working more. With the recent changes, we've had to cut a few corners here and there - like not buying organic milk - the horror! - but we are pretty much doing fine.P.S. my wife is as liberal as they come

This will be forgotten long before we cast our votes. The only real benefit is it is allowing Mrs. Romney to come to the general public's attention a) just when her husband has secured the nominatio, and b) in a way which emphasizes her humanity, struggles, and empathy without beating everyone over the head with it.

That's the real problem with the Obama error - they obviously haven't co-ordinated on how to approach certain aspects of their campaign against Romney and therefore walked into a trap they should easily have seen coming.

Considering how much was made last election about how Obama's brilliant campaign was proof he was ready to govern, it will be interesting to see if they get their act together or not. This was, as Ann pointed out, an example of frame fail, which happens to bad campaigns (certainly happened to Dole and McCain).

I have been astonished by the legs on Rosengate. Every media outlet I have looked at since yesterday has headlined it. Rosen managed to end the War on Women meme with one spoken line. It has had so much play that that will now be the one salient fact in people's minds whenever the Obama camp tries to resuscitate the malignant War on Women narrative.

Class warfare is another matter. It is the Democrats' bread and butter, and they cannot win the election without playing it for all it's worth.

Bottom line-- Democrats will tippytoe away from the War on Women and push the feckless Buffett Rule and any other meme that characterizes Republicans as silk-hatted plutocrats with gory fangs.

@BenderI really have not paid much attention to the latest "outrage of the day over what someone said," but to the extent that I was confronted with having to hear about this, what I took from it was Romney is well off and, thus, has never really had to work.

Wow, talk about dog whistles. Try getting out more often, you'll be surprised what you hear.

"That doesn't mean her side has lost the war or that it is not capable of a war on 2 fronts."

We could stduy Jomini or Clausewitz if we want to carry on with the martial metaphors (yes, I know there are more modern theorists, but I'm striking a balance between new approaches vs. old but still applicable; dilettantes such as Gordon Gecko-wannabes would go for Sun-Tzu).

Gee, you made me pull an old book off my shelf - "The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers & Fathers Are Going Broke". Written in 2003. Of course, there has been a major paradigm shift in the economy since then.

Main points were that families were in a ferocious bidding war for housing & decent schools. In 2003 more children were living through their parents' bankruptcy than their parents' divorce. Two-income family earns 75% more than its single-income counterpart a generation ago, but actually has less to spend.

" Tyrone Slothrop said...I have been astonished by the legs on Rosengate. Every media outlet I have looked at since yesterday has headlined it."

Ty, I think everyone has been suprised by it. I suppose strategists on both sides are burning the midnight oil trying to determine what this means.

To me, either Mrs. Romney is a real game changer who can win over women big time - or at least enough - to make O's chances very slim, or this means people are more ready to think ill of the incumbant and well of the challenger than I once thought - which also bodes poorly for Obama.

“It was the insurance executives in health care. It was the bankers in the collapse. It was the oil companies as oil prices go up. It was Congress if things didn’t go the way he wanted. And recently it’s been the Supreme Court,” he said.

“He’s got an enemies list that would make Richard Nixon proud.”

Welch, who helmed GE for 21 years and founded the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University, penned an op-ed article for Reuters with wife Suzy Welch this week in which he tackled the idea of Obama’s enemies list.

“Surely his supporters must think this particular tactic is effective, but there can be no denying that the country is more polarized than when Obama took office,” Welch wrote.

Althouse wrote: Women should perceive the traditional married-life model as a big threat. It's retrograde and subordinating. It's a throwback to the bad old days when women lacked choices and so forth. Anyone promoting the traditional married-life model will be re-framed as someone who will destroy the advances that have been made for women — even if they are only saying women have a choice, and the traditional model is actually a great choice...

Go read that Amanda Marcotte piece again and you find that this is exactly where's she put herself. She is contemptuous of conservative women but her real fury is reserved for the liberal woman who choose not to validate her careerist floundering.

The class warfare meme isn't just a loser when combined with the war on women. It's a loser in general. It's a petard on which liberals hoist themselves.

I noticed this reading Megan McArdle. Liberals invoke class as a substitute for ideas and the only authentic class is the poorer class. McArdle can't possibly have valid economic ideas because she wasn't raised a cobbler's daughter.

Yet it's a race to the bottom. When the class-warriors argue with themselves they go nowhere. There's always someone who's more authentic than you. You grew up in a trailer park. She grew up in a housing project. They grew up in a one-room shack. He grew up in a water tank on a rubbish tip.

Then, when the class warriors argue with the identity activists, the end result is petty resentment and hurt feelings. Forget ideas. Every policy discussion turns into a fight for that ragged hairshirt of authenticity. Whoever grabs the rag wins the argument, you see.

AA is trying to create a false parallel here. The Hilary Rosen comment is viewed by conservatives as revealing a disdain by liberals, particularly female liberals, of women who make the choice to stay at home as part of a traditional married-life model.

Just as many conservative comments could be cited by liberals as revealing a disdain by conservatives of women who want to have the choice to have abortions.

The difference is, there is an active political movement, with real legislatures enacting real measures, seeking to limit women's reproductive choices. There is no comparable political movement to legislate against women choosing to follow a traditional marriage/household model.

The central battleground in childbearing choice is with respect to real state action. There is no comparable battleground on the choice of a traditional marriage. The battle, such as it is, is much more in the arena of attitude -- those liberals should stop looking down on us moms who choose to stay at home. No liberal legislatures are proposing to restrict that choice.

This election, so far, these "wars"-- this is about each side locking down its own resentments. You don't want to lose the resentment vote!

If you might be thinking the Republicans have become less hostile to "liberated women", the Democrats are ready to remind you that they have not. If you think that Democrats have become less judgey about "traditional values", the Republicans are here to remind you they have not.

What would be the equivalent of "-gate" that would signify not a scandal, but a battle.

Bitchkrieg.

That's what happens when the prominent politico's wife not so much discovers the floozy as she realizes the exposure of the fling to the public (usually revealing what a sleaze he and sometimes she (wife) really are) will end her shot at the greater power she dreams for herself.

In fairness to Obama, neither he nor his advisers were stupid enough to say this. It was a surrogate. A very bad surrogate. It reminds me when Phil Gramm, one of McCain's surrogates, said Americans were whiners.

Obama's path to re-election is very narrow. These gaffes by his surrogates could prove costly.

But Obama himself made the very, very stupid statement that he and Michelle did not have the luxury of one of them staying at home after their daughters were born. By the time his second daughter was born, Obama was 40 and his wife 37. They were both well-connected double-Ivy's living in an elite area in Chicago.

At any time, Obama could have jumped to a large law firm or I-bank or private equity fund and made a ton of cash without doing any work based on his connections. This is what Rahm Emanuel was doing at the time.

The reason class warfare won't work is because a huge chunk of the 1% are liberals. Romney may have run Bain Capital, but many of those individuals who invested and the money managers of the pension funds and endowments who invested in the Bain funds are wealthy liberals.

The class warfare argument will be quickly redirected against guys like Buffett, Soros, Gates, etc. who say one thing and pay very little taxes as a percentage of their wealth. It will not be limited to the Brothers K and the guy with the monocle on the Monopoly box.

To me, either Mrs. Romney is a real game changer who can win over women big time - or at least enough - to make O's chances very slim, or this means people are more ready to think ill of the incumbant and well of the challenger than I once thought - which also bodes poorly for Obama.

I think both are right (Axelrod and Plouffe are supposedly scared to death of Ann Romney), but the biggie is behind Door #2.

I think that's why we're seeing so many polls with skewed samples.

If Dictator Zero were doing that well, they wouldn't need to cook the books.

Where do both candidates stand in regards to mothers and their children?

Let's take a closer look at one struggling to make ends meet mother. And one well off mother like Ann Romney.

Closely examine how the policies of each candidate would affect each mother and her children, and let America decide. Maybe have a giant chalkboard tally board with an official scorekeeper [such as the CBO], as we crunch the numbers of each candidate, show it on live television, and let America decide. That way there will be no questions where precisely the candidates stand on mothers and their children.

The ObamaCrats have to divide Americans into tribal groups based on skin color, genitalia and money and then pit them against each other in order to get votes. It's what they always do when they can't run on their accomplishments.

But, because they are being rebutted so quickly by the non-DNC alt media, it has all been a spectacular fail, one right after the other.

They think they can pull out a cardboard Halloween decoration of Dracula and say "This is the scary Republican who wants to steal all your lady parts! BOO!!" and it will work with anybody but their brain-dead leftist base.

Gloria Steinem or Molly Yard or some other Vagina Marxist can't be trotted out to tell us "what women really want" by the Monopoly Media with any sort of credibility any more. Close to half of women don't agree with leftist Democrats at all and they now have a voice.

On Twitter, Hilary Rosen has announced she will not appear on Meet the Press this Sunday, though she had been scheduled to do so. “I deeply apologize again to work-in-home moms, Mrs Romney & the POTUS,” Rosen writes. “Not going on #MTP this weekend. I’m going to be a mom who stays home.”

Fundamentally the Democrats are not keen on happy successful people. You can slice it all the ways you would like but happy people piss off progressives. The ingredients of happiness are therefore the objects of progressive disgust. Happy traditional marriage. Love of God. Financial success. Any of these can and do enrage the progressive.

Liberal and Democratic women and Conservative and Republican women both face economic realities when it comes to the decision of a spouse staying home with the kids.

I don't see any divergence in the number of women from both sets of groups who choose to stay home and those who choose to work. In other words those who are trying to make this a "Democrats hate stay at home moms" issue is are desperately trying to get a piece of the war on women action.

There has been no legislation around the country making It more difficult for a stay at home mom, conversely we see a slew of anti abortion legislation throughout the country. Whether you agree with abortion or not doesn't matter, it's happening and many women see it as a threat.

For the Republicans to take this faux pas by Rosen and run with it shows that they understand that women's issues are forefront because of the anti women legislation on the right and are attempting to get in on the war on women bandwagon, because hey recognize it as a real issue.

They are trying to divert the attention away from the abortion legislation and make it a war on stay at home moms and "traditional values".

We need a President who can do the math. Comparing the deficit to the revenue gained by taxing "the rich" (>$250,00/yr in income) is the first calculation. The second one would be throwing in all of their assets as well as their income.

For that matter, people who are enamored of the ideas proposed in the class theater of the war (i.e., class warfare) need to be taught the math. Those aware of the math who still push this campaign should be called on what their true guiding philosophy is. Don't let them hide Marxism or Marxist-derivatives behind fiscal responsibility.

Hi garage mahal said...I say we get it all out in the open before the election.

Where do both candidates stand in regards to mothers and their children?

Let's take a closer look at one struggling to make ends meet mother.

And one well off mother like Ann Romney.

Hilary Beth Rosen (born 1958) is an American lobbyist, Democratic pundit and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LBGT) activist. She worked for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for 16 years where she was CEO from 1998 to 2003. She is the Managing Director of Public Affairs and Communications Practice at SKDKnickerbocker.

Cedarford said...Rosen is also now being brought out by media looking into her background as Sandra Fluke's principal "handler" via the firm she co-manages along with former Whte House head of communications Anita Dunn..

Interestingly, her 36 visits to the White House do not include any visits she may have made in 2012. Records for that are still unavailable.

Personally, I think many women have been fooled over the years into working terribly hard for too little reward. I also think — and I'm very non-retrograde here — that many men can do well as the stay-at-home spouse.

---------------Fantastic post and analysis! You hit on the inherent conflict that the Democrats run into and I would love to see you develop it further from the sentence I highlighted. The conflict is this: Women need to realize their potential in the workplace and have an as good a career as a successful man. But the traditional model of marriage predominantly has the woman make the 'sacrifice' to stay at home. Nothing new here. So unless there is a predominant social change where it becomes necessary and acceptable for men to stay at home, this problem will never be resolved. Democrats are going for the low hanging fruit here -- they say 'you don't need a husband, we/govt will take care of you and you go after realizing your potential'. But the dichotomy between the two parties and their bases are pretty clear. What is the resolution? The definition of traditional marriage where man is the breadwinner and woman is the homemaker has to change. What would make that happen? One way is for women to marry a 'lesser' man for whom it makes sense economically to stay at home. We are talking about middle class traditions and social mores here and rich need not apply.

{Years ago, my first toastmasters icebreaker was about 'role reversal' where it becomes widely accepted that men could stay at home while their wives go out and bring home the bacon.

Congrats to 'Yashu' for making the front page. I thought last night his comment was pretty neat.}

A significant part of the balance is the intangible of having a parent home with the children most of the time. This has a value not measurable in dollars and cents. That value may vary with the family, depending on their own values, the quality of child care available and the ability of the stay at home spouse to stay adequately engaged in child rearing.

Having a spouse who does not work outside the house can also benefit the career of the working spouse, in a number of ways.

I have two daughters who are married and also work, each with two children. One daughter is the primary earner in the family by far, the other is the lower earner by a somewhat lesser margin. The jobs are not necessarily more or less demanding. They just pay differently.

Both these families have pretty much the same issues regarding allocation of time and child raising. The one with the high earning female is most able to purchase first rate child care, and they do to great advantage. In both marriages husband and wife's career decisions and outcomes are influenced by child raising responsibilities. They have both come to the point where they utilize structured "rules" as a starting point for time allocation and division of responsibility.

They all have pretty high level managerial and problem solving skills which enable them to pull off this circus. Some of their friends who lack or fail to employ these skills are not doing so well.

What I generalize from this is that it's a hard topic to generalize upon.

Garage: Yes, I would take you up on that approach. I think, looking back over the last three years the average working mother having to struggle to survive would look at Obama as an abject and disgusting failure and his promises so much bullshit. I would think that the "policies" that the president has offered up have profoundly failed everyone, including and perhaps especially working mothers.

You seem to forget that the asshole Obama has been our president and we have much to examine. Virtually no working mother is better off today than she was at the outset of this presidency, no child better off.

those who are trying to make this a "Democrats hate stay at home moms" issue is are desperately trying to get a piece of the war on women action.

Your people are the ones who tried to tie Rush's "slut" remark to the GOP mast, so shut up and take it. Rosen is an Obama attack dog. She speaks for Democrats. Hence, Democrats hate stay at home moms.

There has been no legislation around the country making It more difficult for a stay at home mom

How casually dismissive. Do you think mothers are affected by legislation that limits the supply of gas? (assuming you understand the relationship between fuel and food). Or how about the already too high tax burden encourages women to stay-at-home instead of remaining in the work force?

conversely we see a slew of anti abortion legislation throughout the country ...many women see it as a threat.

"All this may be shrewd tactical politics, but Romney shouldn’t mistake it for the main event. The election won’t be won or lost on the “war on women,” nor will Romney ever eliminate his “gender gap” — the differential in his support between men and women. If Romney wins the argument over the economy, he wins the election. Everything else is a detail."

As I perceive things the two are simply different front in the same "war." What is only beginning to come out is that there are several more fronts because there is really only one over-arching theme for Democrats -- stay on the reservation.

Thus there are the 'right' sort of women (dependent victim identity activists and voters) and the wrong sort of women (those who promote or live self-reliance and liberty). Palin, Bachmann, A Romney, and plenty of others are pushed into this latter class.

There are the 'right' sort of blacks (dependent victim identity activists and voters) and the wrong sort of blacks (those who promote or live self-reliance and liberty). C Thomas, H Cain and plenty of others are pushed into the latter class.

The right sort of Hispanic, and the wrong sort. The right sort of millionaire, and the wrong sort. And so on.

So it's not a "war" on wealth, per se but against any and all who dare contend that dependence upon permanent, intrusive Democrat governance is not a good thing.

Student loans are hurting family formation in the U.S. Time to marry, baby, first house, first car. More loans=less choice to not bring an income.

A problem when both husband and wife bring in big loans to the marriage. Imagine two law grads with loans marrying. Hard for one to stay at home until the loans are reduced.

Anyways, no gender gap with married women. Not sure this discourse has a positive political effect. The danger is alienating others with feelings of guilt or failure.

Why didn't you marry a better man? Why doesn't your husband support your choice to stay at home? Why does't he make a better income? Why can't you afford your mortgage? How could you have bought that house before the crash? You overbought and now your children are suffering. Why did you take out a student loan? Why didn't you choose a better career? Why aren't you staying home with your child? Why did you get divorced? You didn't do enough for your spouse and now you have to work. You are destroying your children. Why can't you find a man to support you? What is wrong with you?

Bob: The difference is, there is an active political movement, with real legislatures enacting real measures, seeking to limit women's reproductive choices. There is no comparable political movement to legislate against women choosing to follow a traditional marriage/household model.

Oh lookie, Allie and Bob have the same talking points memo!

Hey Allie, now would be a good time for another of your "just be honest" lectures.

Saw it a long time ago. The Dems approach has long been to convince various groups "they need dependency on government for protection" and survival. The better they do this the more they can set up they're totalitarian state. But, they're getting desperate and afraid people are seeing them for the wannabe tyrants they are. They have to act fast. Thus, the screw ups.

I don't believe that protecting a human life in the womb with the same rights as the mother to be oppression to women, but rather, a logical application of existing individual rights to what will be a separate human being.

Because when I was conceived by accident, I was not an oppressor. Completing the pregnancy was not oppression or slavery. It was biology.

That there are dire economic consequences for unplanned pregnancies by single women does not change that fact. Like the dire economic consequences of outlawing slavery in the South, the central issue is an individual human life that has different DNA than the mother.

If anything, it speaks to adult women to quit using your genitals as a Fun Park, if you can't handle the results. But we can't say that. We can tell men to zip it up, wrap it up or fork over a lifetime of earnings, but somehow the owner of the vagina can't be held responsible for the activities taking place therein. Somehow, that sneaky penis got in there and made a baby, unbeknownst to the vaginas owner.

The response we're to accept is either "Woops, grab that mans wallet or give me access to everybody elses wallet, I always wanted a baby." or "woops, somebody better pony up for the abortion if baby daddy can't". Any other response is Oppression to Women. Poppycock.

Garage: Why not have the CBO score what wonders Obama has done for working women during his term of office? That would be the high hurdle that Romney will have to overcome even dragging along his rich wife.

Not widely discussed, but sure to be on people's minds if the "Rosen the Obama Operative" story has legs - is Rosen's not-so-typical woman's life. And her past work - like killing Napster and being Sandra Flukes 'designated handler'.

On the personal front: The fact that Rosen comes from a wealthy jewish NYC mass media family, is uber-connected in the media and recording industries, is a militant feminist and a lesbian. Her own "motherhood" consists of adopting two kids in her 40s, along with her then-lifetime partner, Elisabeth Birch, who headed the largest LGBT pressure group outfit in the country - "Human Rights Campaign".

Not that there is anything Wrong with that!But her bio suggests Rosen hardly speaks from experience about everyday women and their everyday concerns and struggling families.

The mask slipped off. And behind the curtains Rosen inadvertently opened, we see her as moving the media levers and advancing "The Narrative" the White House Communications people wanted women to believe.

So if I vote against a Dem, I vote against abortion, ergo I vote against my own self-interest?

I find it insulting I'm only defined by my lady-bits. I'm insulted that I'm some raging hormonal animal which can only be brought under control by a free prescription. It's like we're back in the middle ages. Or farther.

There is an article by Michelle Goldberg in the Daily Beast. For health reasons, I couldn't bring myself to finish it, but I did read far enough to understand that Ted Kennedy garnered far more of the the women's vote than Romney in their contest. If a dripping sleaze like Kennedy could win the woman's vote, I don't think Obama will have all that much trouble....I don't understand women.

Well, good luck getting a fair treatment of this topic. I think the easiest thing to do is to go back in time, and say "Was there a time when the average woman was able to raise the kids while Dad did the work." That's the proof, and it's been going on since Greek times. The choice you are talking about isn't so much a choice due to necessity, but to social mores. It's available today, no matter what the left says.

The question I would like answered is "Why, in this opulent era, does it require two workers?" I think the answer is very simple. The government, with all its inefficiencies, has made it so the left has a case. Parents aren't staying together, and it costs society to take care of the single moms, who can't support the costs of their children. There is an expansion of basic schooling into a day care system to support single parent families.

This is the real question, in my mind. Even with all the efficiencies of the work force, you have to decide what kind of society you want. One made up with individuals, family units, self integrity, or people looking to a maoist government (that's where it will end up), taking power away from individuals and forcing them to the point where they can not make choices. Both parents must work.

I would love to see the analysis of that, and the terrible destruction caused by the left on individuals, and individual choice, all with double speak "You have more choice if you give us your freedom."

I don't think they can fight this war on their terms. Ann Romney's lifestyle is aspirational. Most of the women I know who are working would love to be able to stay home, at least for a time, to raise their kids. Mitt was born to rich parents but he and his wife earned their way up the business and success ladder -- his life is aspirational too.

Most Americans believe they have a choice, if they work hard, to achieve success and freedom from want.

The lefties never get anywhere in the US with their class warfare because most people believe they can get to the top too. People like the Obamas, I'm sure will be pointed out, earned their millions largely through political connections and opportunism. To most Americans, that stinks of aristocracy and the elitism found in socialist countries.

I also was drawn to a pithy thing "Jane" said that I think will predict how women will vote.

The notion "that women are more concerned with getting 10 dollars worth of free birth control bills than they are with 100 dollar gas bills or 300 dollar utility bills."

Right now, forces are at work in the market that will punish each man and women in the country in not just direct fuel costs after Obama's "war on cheap energy" - but even more notable prices of meat, dairy, produce that will rise all summer and early fall reflecting the passed-on costs of 5 dollar gas and 5.50 diesel.

And the follow on to that of destroyed budgets will not hit Obama's "we should have 8 dollar gasoline to help the transition to Blessed Solar - elites" - but will be seen in the patronage and jobs lost at other goods and services the non-elites go to. When your budget is wrecked by essentials like gas for the car, groceries, utility bills....there is a whole lot less for discretionary things like restaurants, clothing stores, wine, Walmart trinkets, etc.

The President that went down the ruinous Green Jobs!, war on coal, drilling, pipelines path will not be able to convince many that the cause of this coming wreck is the evil oil companies and how we need to tax them more to jack up the price of diesel and gas even more as they pass the taxation costs on..

I am not sure what this "war on women" is supposed to consist of. The only issue I have heard brought up is some dim bulb wanted everyone to buy her condoms or birth control pills. Insurance already covers birth control for real medical problems so that seems a mighty flimsy reed to build a war around.

Apparently if you don't think it is smart to pay $10 in insurance premiums so the insurance company can buy you $9 worth of birth control pills you have declared war on women. We won't even mention the values involved in making some woman's bedtime frolics consequence free at the expense of others religious freedom.

Either the people touting this line are just not very bright or they think the people (women) they are selling it to aren't very bright. Rosen's behavior seems to be proof of the former.

But here is the thing. When your entire ruling philosophy is to divide people up into groups and pit them one against the other there will inevitably be times when those groups overlap. So if you are trying to champion women but demonize the rich then what the hell do you do with rich women? The more factions you carve the electorate into the more overlap there will be.

It is one thing to sow discord as the ends and means of governing. This is what community organizers do and it is at the heart of all forms of leftism. It is another to do it so incompetently that you end up boosting your opposition. Obama is Romney's best spokesman right now and Romney's blandness is a great strength for him when the other side is so set upon self-destruction. All he has to do is sit back and be reasonable and eventually the left will offend everyone.

To believe there is a war on women being waged by the right we must believe that if you are rich, pro-life, Catholic or a stay at home mom then you are not a woman despite your sex. If they keep whittling things down at this rate there will be no "women" left to cast a vote by the time the election rolls around.

Hilary Rosen’s attack on Ann Romney was about as spontaneous as George Stephanopoulos’s question to Mitt Romney about contraception. John Nolte begins to piece together the Rosy scenario in “Video: Obama lays groundwork for Rosen’s attack on Ann Romney,” and Ed Driscoll rounds up related commentary. I would just add that the coldness and dispatch with which the Obama administration/campaign apparatus has thrown Rosen under the bus is a chilling study in cynicism and detachment.

-----

Via TaxProf:

The National Organization of Marriage has sent this letter to the Treasury Inspector General of Tax Administration demanding an investigation of the IRS's leak of an official tax form listing a $10,000 contribution by Mitt Romney's PAC to NOM during NOM's campaign to repeal California's gay marriage law:

Last week, NOM became aware that its 2008 Form 990 Schedule B has been unlawfully obtained from the IRS by the Human Rights Campaign and the Huffington Post and published by both of these entities, as well as subsequent publication by other organizations and individuals

It is apparent from the copy of the NOM's 2008 Schedule B that appears on the HRC and Huffington Post websites that the purloined 2008 Schedule B is the official version filed with the IRS, such that the source of the illegal public release can only be the IRS. The unauthorized public release of NOM's 2008 Schedule B is a violation of federal law. See 26 U.S.C. § 6103.

Please consider this as NOM's formal request for an immediate investigation of the circumstances surrounding this matter, to identify the person(s) responsible for these illegal actions and the referral of those IRS employee(s) and others for prosecution by the appropriate authorities for violation of federal criminal statutes.

"I've never been so insulted in my life. Then you need to get out more." Benny Hill show

It's true. They keep voting for it? Republicans are attacking womens' issues. How's the black family doing? That was the forerunner. Learn from history. Daniel Moynihan could see the train wreck and he was a dem.

Who's the daddy when you're a single mom? And I include divorce there?

There's your poverty.

There's a study done over 30 years ago and re-confirmed a couple of years ago.

If you don't want to be poor:

Get a HS diplomaDon't get married until you're over 20Don't have kids until you're married.

In short - traditional Judeo-Christian values. Funny how that works.

Welcome to socialism, the lowest common denominator. Gotta break it down so your side can get your EUtopia/Heaven on Earth.

OT, but this, along with the revelation that Obama pays his women staffers less than his male staff, is laugh out loud funny, "President Obama paid a total federal tax rate of 20.5 percent on a gross adjusted income $789,674, a rate that may come in below that of his secretary." ( from the White House Dossier blog)

Most of you here are still ignoring the anti abortion legislation by the right. Why was it done? Wasn't our economy worth the states attention more so than anti abortion legislation?

Someone (ALEC, religious right, Heritage Foundation?) goofed big time, by encouraging the states to focus on this issue. Now Republicans have seen their mistake and are desperately trying to jin up an argument that Democrats are anti stay at home moms, it's a weak argument with no evidence to back it up, except a faux pas by a CNN talking head.

Micheal you are being disingenuous when you ask this question. Many states have made it more difficult which is a way for them to circumvent the Roe v Wade. As Althouse herself has said, it could be a rights issue if it makes getting an abortion more difficult.

Garage. Let's get started with our test. Gas was 2.19 a gallon for poor working moms when Obama took office. Gas now costs poor working moms 4.00 per gallon. Since they work the drive to andfrom work and to and from day care eats up much of the income of the poor working mother.

Your turn. Use one of the mean rich guys policies as an example using numbers.

"Micheal you are being disingenuous when you ask this question. Many states have made it more difficult which is a way for them to circumvent the Roe v Wade. As Althouse herself has said, it could be a rights issue if it makes getting an abortion more difficult."

AllieOpp. No thanks. I have no idea of what you mean by "making it harder" to get abortions and so forth. It is a useless exercise since abortion is legal in all states. You have a bullshit talking point and your assertions are so vague as to be laughable.

Your right to kill your children is there in all of our states. Kill away.

Dreams, The point is that enough women fought for the right to a legal abortion, enough women are now seeing that right threatened. If the anti abortion women come out in enough numbers to vote for their candidate, then their stance on anti abortion gets strengthened. Same thing goes for the pro choice women.

I guess it boils down to which side of the abortion issue has more engaged and concerned women willing to vote for what they believe in, since the right wing made this election about women's rights issues, as I said.

I think they made a error in judgment there, should've focused on the economy.

Q, if you want to fool yourself into thinking that women didn't fight for the right to a legal abortion, fine. The ultimate decision was made by the SC, no kidding.

Again I ask WHY the anti abortion legislation in the states? Why not focus on the economy? The right wing miscalculated, you can try all you want to squeak out of this, it's happened, it's real and many women know it.

The polls I've seen indicate that while most people do not want an outright ban on abortion, most do want more restrictions on the practice. So, whatever state laws are wending their way through the legislative process, to the extent they pass they will probably be popular.

The real distinction in women is between married and single rather than between working v. stay-at-home. Married women vote much more in the conservative direction than single women. The explanation that jumps to mind is that married women already have someone they can count on and so don't need a nanny state. If there are other logical hypotheses, I would love to hear them.

Q, if you want to fool yourself into thinking that women didn't fight for the right to a legal abortion, fine.

Much like the right to vote, the right to an abortion was handed to women by men. Women "fighting" was not a factor in either case, though in both cases there were women on both sides of the issue. Of course you would need to have more than an American high-school knowledge of history to be aware of this.

Again I ask WHY the anti abortion legislation in the states?

Again I tell you that the voters of the states decide what their legislatures should consider important. And again I ask you why you have such hatred for the whole concept of representative government. Legislatures voting on issues of concern to their constituents is the very essence of the American ideal in action. So what is you problem with it?

The right wing miscalculated, you can try all you want to squeak out of this, it's happened, it's real and many women know it

Again with the "many women" evasion. I'm sure that there are "many women" for sharia law, or for pedophilia. There are "many women" for (and against) just about everything you can imagine.

As mind-blowing a concept as this clearly is to you, there are many women who support greater restrictions on the "right" to an abortion.

Stay-at-home moms are not exclusively upper income. Hispanics are culturally very family oriented and the majority in lower income areas have families with moms who stay home. Arguably, they would be better off with two incomes but they value the traditional role just as much as the wealthy Obamas, who didn't have the "luxury" for Michelle to stay home, dismiss it.

I have stayed at home and been in the workforce as a professional. There is definitely a cultivated disdain for women who stay home in certain circles. I loved staying home and never saw my role as "less than" when I was working.

I now am in the role of breadwinner for our family as my middle-aged husband has struggled to find full-time work for several years in the high tech industry. I have to admit, that while I would love the relief that his having a real salary would bring, his being home for large parts of the day helps our family work in many of the same ways that my staying at home did, especially as we still have children at home. (Unfortunately, he doesn't vacuum or clean toilets.) I have come to believe that one parent at home, regardless of sex, is really the optimum way to run a family.

If you are opposed to anti-abortion legislation in e.g. Arizona then (assuming you are an Arizonan) you have the option of voting for a different governor, or for different state senators, etc. Which is the way the system is supposed to work.

Of course you are not actually opposed merely to the legislation, you are opposed to the process. You don't think that people in Arizona should be allowed to vote on abortion. You are not in favor of "choice" when it comes to the ballot box.

"Democrats are upset, as reflected in Rosen's remarks, because Ann Romney accurately conveyed what women voters are feeling. The President is tanking in the polls and the issues that women cite as the most important to them are where he is most vulnerable. Consider this from Marc Thiessen:"

"...the age of pregnancy is always calculated from the LMP [last menstrual period], because that is the only date in the reproductive cycle that can be determined with any real accuracy. According to Gunter, when a doctor talks about gestational age they are always 'starting the clock' with the pregnant woman's last period. Arizona is merely codifying an established medical practice."

"Gestational age, or the age of the baby, is calculated from the first day of the mother's last menstrual period. Since the exact date of conception is almost never known, the first day of the last menstrual period is used to measure how old the baby is."

"Gestation is the period of time between conception and birth. Gestational age is the common term used during pregnancy to describe how far along the pregnancy is. It is measured in weeks, from the first day of the woman's last menstrual cycle to the current date."

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002367.htm

Geez Garage, even the NIH agrees. Are you ready to claim that the federal government is restricting womyn's rights?

Michael, I agree, it's about the economy, so why did the right wing make it about abortion rights in the states? The cat has been let out of the bag, pro choice women KNOW what's up, they know what how far right the Republican Party as swung. Independent women know now too.

The right wing messed up by not focusing on the economy until now, they wasted their time on anti abortion legislation, face it they screwed up. Own it.

Let's strip away the campaign, the politics, the economics, etc., and just look at what was said and why it backfired.

I believe that what made the attack backfire was that Ann Romney is apparently not only a nice person, but her reputation is apparently as pure as the driven snow. Rosen's line would have worked splendidly against anybody who had even a whiff of other scandal about her (think Leona Helmsley). If something bad comes up about Mrs. Romney that diminishes this sympathy factor, you can bet that the "never worked a day in her life" slam will be back (if, indeed, it ever actually goes away among the Democratic operative crowd.)

Abortion in Germany is technically permitted in the first trimester upon condition of mandatory counseling and a waiting period, and in rare exceptional cases afterwards.[citation needed]

Abortion is legal on-request in France in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy (first trimester)

It is customary to schedule abortions one week after the patient demands it as a "cool-off" period, but this delay can be shortened if the patient is getting close to the 12-week limit. After the twelfth week, two physicians must certify that the patient’s health is endangered or there is a high likelihood that the fetus is handicapped by a non-curable serious illness; otherwise, abortion is illegal.

Allie the Fake Nurse: Michael, I agree, it's about the economy, so why did the right wing make it about abortion rights in the states?

They didn't. You did.

The cat has been let out of the bag, pro choice women KNOW what's up, they know what how far right the Republican Party as swung. Independent women know now too. The right wing messed up by not focusing on the economy until now, they wasted their time on anti abortion legislation, face it they screwed up. Own it.

*laughing*

You're not really very good at this, are you?

You sound like a 40 year old adopting her daughter's street slang. Very likely too, as we already saw you try to appropriate her military cred for yourself.

Ok, Fen, I knew it wouldn't take long, for you to try to deflect away from the topic to make personal attacks and lies. Note to other commenters here, I won't let this thread derail because of Fen and his non stop lies.

Fen recognizes he has lost this argument and reverts to lying again in an attempt to smear his opponent.

Don't bring me into this unnecessarily. I thought your whole line of argument yesterday was flawed and haven't been paying attention to this one as a result. The only reason I saw this was that my publicist said someone used my name.

Actually Garage, you are your own worst enemy. The bill you are complaining about is not a very good one. But there are things in it much worse than calculating gestational age. You don't see it, because you have corrupted the language so much in pursuit of soundbytes to mislead the masses.

So I guess... carry on. You guys will impale yourself on your own sword eventually.

BTW, I love how there's not even an admission on your part that you misrepresented the bill.

Dreams, The point is that enough women fought for the right to a legal abortion, enough women are now seeing that right threatened.

My copy of the constitution doesn't have that one. Maybe my copy is old.Did RoeVwade grant women a special status under the constitution? Or did RoeVwade simply assert that as far as the federal government was concerned it would not consider abortion illegal? States could do what they want.Where is the penumbra on that one?

AllieOpp: They didn't make anything about abortion, the left did. Now it is off the table. Pro-choice women can yammer all they want but they are going to vote for Obama anyway if they are so focused on the "war on women" that they don't care about gas prices going through the roof, the most sluggish recovery EVER from a recession, and so on. Own that. Obama has had an opponent for two days. This is going to be a long campaign and only ideologues are going to be thinking about the so-called strategy you are focused on and which I have never heard a word. And as to right wing matters I am in the know.

@Allie: I don't think the right wing made up the "War On Women" meme. The first I heard of the topic was when Stephanopoulis asked Romney about birth control back in January during a debate. Everybody went "huh?" Is Stephanopoulis right wing?

Of course Roe v. Wade is now an "old" culture war issue, but who brought it up in the context of the 2012 election?

And just FYI, babies are in the uterus, not the vagina. If you feel the need to talk about "probing" (and you clearly do) then it should be "uterine probing", or "fetal probing". Even that is stupid, as ultrasound is no more "probing" than you are "probed" when the police point a radar gun at your car. Ultrasound is non-invasive, or "non-probing" to you.

But as I've pointed out before, most of our political problems could be solved if liberals learned the English language.

Garage: So, I made my case for Obama doing financial violence to working mothers by presiding over gas prices doubling in three years. What horrible policy of Romney"s is going to be worse? Whatever meager gains in wages poor working mothers made during the last three years have been ripped from their purses by the gas hikes, grocery prices through the roof. One of his Obama's tax breaks for the working middle class mother wouldn't fill a single tank of gas. Not one.

There were no "anti-women" bills in 2011 or any other year for that matter. But the price of everything has gone up and women, working women, are paying the price. The economy "grows" at a sub three percent pace against the normal recovery rate of six percent plus. The recession, which our president seems to think we are still in, was over almost three years ago and no one notices because the plight of the working mothers has only gotten worse.

I would like to nominate in medias res for these things. Does that apply only to actual court cases, if not then Roseninmediasres. Or Roseninres. Now that I've nominated that name I take a vote *boink*

To circle all the way back before the discussion descended to name calling....

AA's original post suggested an inconsistency or perhaps an hypocrisy among liberals, specifically with regard to liberals' claim to favor "choice" for women.

The suggestion is that while liberals favor choice for women in permitting abortions, they do not favor choice in terms of allowing women to choose traditional marriage structures, where one spouse works and one is responsible for home-related matters.

My point: liberals do favor choice for women in the abortion realm, by opposing state action, whether federal or state, which would impose the force of law to prevent or restrict the ability of women to have abortions. As far as I know, liberals do not favor any state action which would impose the force of law to prevent or restrict the ability of women to elect traditional marriage arrangements.

To say that Obamacare or other liberal-supported programs have the effect of screwing up the economy, thereby making life tougher for stay at home moms and other people too, may or may not be true. But it is beside the point. At least beside this point. None of these programs are promoted with the goal of preventing a traditional marriage with one couple working and one not.

Sure, lots of liberals may reveal themselves as disdaining on a social and cultural level women who elect to stay at home. This is a long way from supporting legislative action restricting women's right to do so.

To say that Obamacare or other liberal-supported programs have the effect of screwing up the economy, thereby making life tougher for stay at home moms and other people too, may or may not be true. But it is beside the point. At least beside this point. None of these programs are promoted with the goal of preventing a traditional marriage with one couple working and one not.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other. I don't know for certain what the "goal" of liberals is in doing the things which they do. But liberals always attribute the worst possible motives to other people. So simple fairness requires me to do the same and to assume that the "goal" of liberals is in fact to discourage the formation of traditional marriage.

"My point: liberals do favor choice for women in the abortion realm, by opposing state action, whether federal or state, which would impose the force of law to prevent or restrict the ability of women to have abortions."

In 1973, the USSC created the right to an abortion out of nothing -- a right the nation was not asking for, and in large measure, did not believe in.

We are all still trying to stop the bleeding from this rip in the nation's social fabric.

AA's post and the morphing of the comment thread into an abortion pro/con show the damage the court did with Roe. Now "women" are a political prize to be fought over, with the right to kill in their wombs a part of the bargain.

liberals do favor choice for women in the abortion realm, by opposing state action, whether federal or state, which would impose the force of law to prevent or restrict the ability of women to have abortions.

Do liberals favor choice for women in the murder realm, by opposing state action, whether federal or state, which would impose the force of law to prevent or restrict the ability of women to commit murder?

If not, why not? Don't they believe in the right of every woman to make her own choice?

Or do they actually believe that in some cases, just being a woman is not sufficient justification for doing whatever you want?

Lets "gate" Rosen and Fluke and call it Rosenfluke. It means: An attempt to control/direct the message that fails miserably.

As for the conservative's can't keep out of womens uteri lets remember that almost all discussions (for lack of a better word) about women start with the liberal insistence that a woman is primarily a sexual organ to be controlled/directed/supported/financed/manipulated for the furtherance of the liberal agenda. Check back if you doubt me. Liberals always go to the most base sexual function as the most important (easily manipulated), function of any person they wish to control.

This is interesting. I don't know how it's going to play out but I hope that whichever party honestly and honorably respects women - as a gender different but equal to men - is recognized and acknowledged for that.

Chauvinism is, for many, a distant memory. Something that used to be - like racism. Yet there are remnants that remain. And they remain in BOTH parties, imo.

Santorum is obvious. Bill Clinton is obvious. The theocratic right thinks women have a place and they'd better not be having sex with no consequences. They want to define the word *family* for everyone. The chauvinistic left wants women to have all the abortions they want BECAUSE there are no consequences and they can USE women as objects.

But who really understands that women are different from men - yet equal? That's who will speak to me.